Jellymatter is, we claim, not afraid of equations, but apparently scientists are. A study in PNAS claims to have found that theoretical biology papers are cited less when they are densely packed with mathematical language. The authors argue that this impedes progress, since empirical work needs to be backed up and commensurate with some theory to have deeper scientific meaning.
Yesterday, I went to a science communication conference thing at the University of Brighton. Here is what I learned…
So the first thing to say is that it was quite comforting to hear the science editor for The Observer saying that the medias reporting on genetic modification and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine were real failures of science reporting. He even described the reporting on MMR as “a deep burning shame”. Less favorable was the media representatives description of their roles. Both of them said that their job was not to educate, but rather to either entertain or to “hold our masters to account”. Education, if it occurs, is a side effect. I find this slightly worrying – but less so than other people I have talked to. I will not dwell as I have a different point to make.
It seems to me that when you refer to “energy”, often you are talking about what scientists would call “information”. We not only think information is very important, but have invested a lot of time and effort into understanding it.
PS. You may also be talking about what scientists call “nonsense”.